The only time I ever trained uber deep kamae was during sanshin no kata. I think the title of the article is a bit misleading. The point may have been that there are cases when training in an unrealistic manner have benefits. In this case, the benefit might be conditioning and a better understanding of the technique. It's easier to teach ichimonji and the mechanics behind the kamae by insisting that it's done to the extreme. Just standing relaxed and throwing your arms up isn't really conveying the feeling.

Here's a novel idea, instead of assuming his statements are unproved or untested, why not email him and politely ask him? Arnaud is a nice enough guy, I'm sure he would be happy to answer any questions you may have. He also travels quite a bit, you may be able to experience his untested training first hand.

Myabe you should actually do some research and get some real experience before you spout off like an ignorant fool.

I've trained with Arnaud, the majority of **** he does/shows is completely dependent upon compliant attackers and a suspension of reality.

And Muqatil........Why don't you come up with some evidence that indicates the majority of BJK isn't full of ****.............

Arnaud is a nice guy but I don't think that he does much to advance people's real fight ability in the methods and material he teaches.

Doing your stances really low will only help you do your stances in a lower position for a longer time. It'll help improve your flexibility for the stance because you're essentially stretching it the entire time and while it will get your legs stronger, it will only be for that particular stance. There will be minimal carryover to such things as squats.

I think they got the idea of "lower stances = stronger legs" from karate. A lot of karate styles seem to think the lower your stance is, the stronger your legs will be. That's why you get guys who think this is a valid fighting stance.

The thing is, when you go to Okinawa and compare some of the traditional styles there to what they do in mainland Japan and everywhere else, the Okinawan stances are much shorter and nowhere near as low.

A BBT practitioner would benefit far more from doing a lot of rope-skipping for footwork rather than holding really deep stances. One will definitely help his footwork, the other not really.

And Muqatil........Why don't you come up with some evidence that indicates the majority of BJK isn't full of ****.............

That's not my job. :happy: I simply train and figure out how to apply what I'm learning to combat.

Oh and my comment to Virus had nothing to do with his rank, it had to do with his own experience with someone he is choosing to drag through the mud.

At least Mongo has personal experience with Arnaud. He voices his opinion based on this. I don't have to agree or disagree, but I can respect what he says about the subject. This is opposed to someone who has chosen to jump on a bandwagon and is looking for continuous support and validation for his decision. Grow up, get over it, and move on.

Oh for what it's worth, I don't have to agree or disagree with what's in the article. Given the opportunity, I would listen to what he was saying, try it out and make my own decisions. It all comes back to "whatever floats your boat".

Try it out? Do I really have to try out "doing it wrong" before I dismiss it?

"The basics" are not "wrong" in most endeavors. The basics of shooting (sight picture, breathing, trigger control, keeping the gun running) are applied in even the most advanced exercises and force-on-force.

I had a football coach who wanted the same thing--always "get lower!" Often I had to do drills at parallel like the bottom of a squat--and he wanted me to go deeper. It made me slow and unable to concentrate on what I was doing. When I hit college, the emphasis was on getting where I needed to be as fast as possible. It was refreshing, but I was behind the curve. I'd been taught that you practice as low as you can get and then play at the proper level.

I've never fenced, but I always understood what most people think of as a low "stance" in fencing to be the end of the lunge. In other words, you end up there as the end of a completely committed attack. You don't fight from there unless you absolutely have to.

When a fencer lunges, he knows he's not going to have to fight from the vulnerable position. Either he's going to get a touch from his lunge, or he's going to get countered and his opponent will get a touch. After the touch, they'll be reset and start over. You don't see fencers (as a rule) choosing to get down into the lunge-end position and fight from there.

When people duelled with rapiers the stance was extremely low in order to protect the legs. In much modern sport fencing you will see higher stances, especially in foil and sabre where leg hits are not a concern. If you're looking at someone with a straight back leg he's at the end of a lunge, otherwise not.

When a fencer lunges, he knows he's not going to have to fight from the vulnerable position. Either he's going to get a touch from his lunge, or he's going to get countered and his opponent will get a touch. After the touch, they'll be reset and start over. You don't see fencers (as a rule) choosing to get down into the lunge-end position and fight from there.

Sort of. You never stay in the lunge position for long, not because you've necessarily hit or been hit, but because you almost always advance (by moving up your back leg) or retreat very quickly if you fail to hit. It is not any kind of comitted all or nothing position, in fencing, as in boxing, these are generally discouraged.